Go to the Beginning of This Section 3. The Age of the Universe: Evolution Science vs. Creation Creationism vs. Evolution
Intelligent Design Theory HOME PAGE
PREFACE: Intelligent Design Theory Explains 2 Mysteries: Gravity and the Structure of the Atom
TABLE OF CONTENTS of Intelligent Design Theory
FOREWORD: Three Important Events Not Taught in School: Creation of the Earth, Noah's Ark and Jesus' Death and Resurrection
NEXT PAGE: 5 Facts About Antimatter, Big Big Bang and Black Holes Theory
Quasars vs. Big Bang
Quasars vs. Big Bang
INDEX of Intelligent Design Theory - Creationism Vs. Evolution Book Keywords
RELATED LINKS, Pro and Con
Contact the Author
30. Supermassive Black Holes in Space
Facts: Quasars and the Big Bang Theory
Fortunately for us, the closest quasars are several billion light years away. Since they are very bright, they must emit enormous amounts of energy. So to justify the existence of quasars, man created black holes "facts". Most if not all galaxies are believed to have supermassive black holes in their centers. These imaginary supermassive black holes in space are centered in the dense bright core of both quasars and large galaxies, the same as we see holes in the centers of hurricanes and whirlpools. The average density of a supermassive black hole defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume can be very low, and is believed to be lower than the density of air. Black holes are supposedly powerful imaginary vacuum cleaners in space that suck up all surrounding matter, converting it into anti-matter, an imaginary opposite of existing matter. If its density is less than the density of air, how can it act as a super massive vacuum cleaner? From this evolved the big bang theory.
The theory evolved that quasars mysteriously derive their energy from black holes, those mysterious places less than the density of air that cannot be seen nor detected, because even the supposed negative light that they emit is supposedly sucked up. It is strange that these black holes are located right in the brightest portion of galaxies, since all light is sucked up. But this is explained because the surrounding space that is not sucked up is somehow energized by the matter that is sucked up.
In January 1995, John Bahcall from Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study blew a hole in the black hole theory. The recently repaired Hubble Space Telescope has testified to what Bahcall described as "a giant leap backwards in our understanding of quasars." Over half the quasars (eight out of fourteen studied) were found to have no huge "host galaxies" with their supposed black holes. Some quasars are within 30,000 light years of much smaller galaxies, less than half the diameter of the Milky Way. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519612.500-lonely-quasers-send-astronomers-back-to-basics.html So Bahcall immediately evolved a new theory: Black holes may form in a massive galaxy (old theory) before the formation of bright stars (new theory). Therefore, only the quasar is visible now, and the galaxy will appear later.
Just so we don't run out of theories, another theory is that quasars are ignited when they encroach into the neighborhood of a black hole in which the galaxy cannot be seen. The light from the galaxy was sucked up by the black hole. Now we have evolved positive proof that imaginary black holes exist. We know they exist because there are galaxies around them that we cannot see. Or could it be that maybe there is nothing around these imaginary supermassive black holes that we cannot see? We also know they exist because we cannot see them. In the process, they decided that all the unimaginably enormous mass in the Universe evolved from a pinhead that was caused by a black hole, which caused a Big Bang.
Scientists came up with another theory that stars get their energy by converting helium into carbon and oxygen through fusion, emitting neutrinos in the process. Unfortunately, the sun, which is an easily observable star, does not emit many neutrinos. So neutrinos were thought to have no mass. This leaves a big hole in the neutrino theory. So a new theory evolved from Anupam Singh of Carnegie Mellon University. To justify the transition from helium to carbon and oxygen with no loss of mass, Singh proposed that neutrinos now actually do have mass. http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v52/i12/p6700_1
Einstein had come up with a constant to prove the Universe stands still. This was later disproved. First, we had an original Grand Unified Force which split into weak and strong nuclear interactions, electromagnetism and gravity. This justified the theory that Einstein's constant dropped to zero a split second after the Big Bang. A new theory, called "inflation" now brings back Einstein's constant, gives it a different value, and uses it to "prove" the Big Bang. New theories have now evolved that in the first split second after the Big Bang, matter changed its state.
To wiggle out of this mess, Singh gives matter a second phase transition a longer time after the Big Bang, and assigns a small mass to the neutrino. Now, wonder of wonders, there are fewer neutrinos detected from the Sun because they changed into other, undetectable varieties. Like the Black Hole and anti-matter, or anything else you can't prove, simply let the new thing be undetectable. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519612.700-how-heavy-neutrinos-could-age-the-universe.html and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9509241.
This is a convenient new theory, because that darned Hubble Space Telescope also pointed out that the stars are racing away from each other much faster than the theory of evolution allows. In fact, Hubble discovered that the Universe is younger than the stars!
Some stars are approaching or exceeding the speed of light. Yet, Einstein "proved" that nothing could move at the speed of light without turning into infinite mass and infinite energy. No one has, as of this writing, evolved a new theory to explain this anomaly. But you can surely expect one soon. In fact, I give a possible explanation: red shift is not caused by the velocity of stars racing away from the earth, but by the speed of light changing due to gas in space. Gas in space gives space a temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
Scientists are careful to never criticize another scientist's theory, lest they be blackballed into a black hole by the scientific community. Instead, they continually come up with new ridiculous theories to justify the old ridiculous theories. Rule 1 of the game is that there is no God. Jesus was not sacrificed to pay for our sins and there is no heaven or hell. The only other rule is, never discredit another evolution-believing scientist. All other rules are waived.
Reviving Einstein's constant at a different value gives us, wonder of wonders, a much older Universe than the Hubble Space Telescope tried to trick us into believing, and explains once again the 30 billion-year evolution of the species.
The Theory of Evolution is the evolution of one false theory after another. The Bible is clear about how the Universe came into being. "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1)." It's that simple. But man chooses to deny that the Universe was created by an Infinite Intelligence. This gives man the freedom to do as he pleases without being responsible to a higher principle and moral obligation. Further, he can imagine that through evolution, man himself will eventually become God.
There are two alternatives to the concept of a Universe created by God. The
first is unthinkable: Since we came from nothing, we do not exist, and this
entire life, what we see, think, feel, taste and smell does not exist. The
second is more plausible. We exist because the infinite Universe began with a
pinhead that exploded. Both ideas are pure nonsense. But since man created the
second idea, he now attempts to justify it by evolving one concept after
Quasars and supermassive black holes in space "facts" are not facts, but holes in galaxies and quasars similar to holes in hurricanes and whirlpools. These "facts" are imaginary theories attempting to justify the false belief in a big bang theory. In January 2014 physicist Stephen Hawking reversed his original concept and claimed that the notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory. Maybe he will soon decide that black holes are simply empty space, similar to the holes in hurricanes. If black holes are simply empty space, there is no basis for the ludicrous contrivance of a Big Bang theory other than a feeble attempt to justify evolution.
New Scientist, 21 January 1995. Lonely quasars send astronomers back to basics.
New Scientist, 29 October 1994. How heavy neutrinos could age the universe.
Singh, Anupam, Physical Review D (vol. 50, p. 671).
Hawking, Stephen W., 1994. A Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes.
(2014).Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761
Copyright (C) 2007, 2014 Robert L. Laing All rights reserved
The 6 Most Popular Pages on IntelligentDesignTheory.info:
The Unique Properties of Water
The Niels Bohr Atom Model
The Speed of Light
The Carbon Atom Model and Diamond Picture
Antimatter, Big Bang and Black Holes
37 Facts of Creation vs. 30 False Theories of Evolution
FREE INTERNET BOOK:
Paperback by author available:
History of Jesus Christ the Human God
Paperback by author available: Little Thinkers -- Squeezing Common Sense Out of Life's Toughest Questions
Paperback by author available: Intelligent Design Theory -- Squeezing Common Sense out of Science, Creation, Noah's Ark and Jesus Christ